How Much Is Enough?

     Someone posted one of those little nuggets of philosophy on my Facebook page the other day. If you are a regular Facebook user, you know the type I mean. They usually have some trite little snippet of philosophy or, worse, appeal to some emotional issue that the person who posts it feels will help their cause. " Repost as your status if you want to end cancer." As if my reposting some little block that someone found on  a web page will cure cancer. My favourites are the ones that deal with family. " Repost if you love your mother, father, son, daughter...fourth cousin once removed..."  I love my family and am fairly certain of their feelings toward me. I stumble through life pretty much taking the bonds of any family structure as a given. If I don't repost, does this mean I have some deep seated unacknowledged hostility toward my family? Bring on the psychoanalysts!  Wait... Don't bother. I can get that online too.

     This one little blurb hit home for me though. It depicted an earth mover pushing garbage at a landfill site. It said "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."  It was attributed to Edward Abbey. It applies to an ideology under which we, as a society, have been operating for far too long.

     What I despair of is a corporate / consumer culture in which, no matter what we have, we can never have enough. It's a relentlessly ongoing symbiotic relationship. The corporations can never have enough profit and to achieve that end they convince the consumer that we can never have enough stuff. 

     How much is enough? What I'd like to address here is greed. Pure, simple, despicable, greed. It's all around us. I am not writing this piece as the whining complaint of a "have not". In the interest of full disclosure, I have more than I need in most respects. As a middle aged man in the twenty-first century, I have more than I could ever have imagined in my youth. I certainly have the options for things of even greater magnitude in the future. For the most part, I am a very fortunate human. I have enough.

     I would suggest that whoever coined the term "retail therapy" is in dire need of therapy of another kind. We place so much emphasis on the acquisition of stuff that our perceived need for such acquisition is rationalized as a form of "therapy". I view it as an addiction and I admit to being a victim of it.

     One would have to be living in a cave to not be aware of the environmental issues that threaten every living organism on this planet. Yet, we blithely continue with our endless exploitation of Earth's limited resources. At some point we have to ask ourselves, " How much is enough?"

     What is worse, we send our armed forces into conflict zones not for any ideology based on truth, justice or equality, but for the preservation, and subsequent growth of an economic ideology which is unsustainable.

   What is required is a new economic paradigm based on the concept of sustainability, not incessant growth.

     Obsessions and addictions are destructive. I know from experience. I am a self admitted alcoholic ( 3 years in recovery) who once spent 30 days in a rehab centre. ( The best month of my life.) Why is it that a drug or alcohol addiction is considered socially unacceptable yet the addiction of the so called " one percent " to obscene amounts of wealth is allowed to go unchecked? If obsessions and addictions are destructive, why do we, as a society, turn a blind eye to an addiction that is destructive on such a massive scale? I think the reason is this. As a society, we cannot curtail the right to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth without accepting the fact that the rule would also apply to ourselves. In effect it is the annilhilation of the so called American Dream. In my opinion, the American Dream has become a nightmare and it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.  I have no problem giving up my right to acquire ridiculous wealth. ( I already consider myself rich.) All I want is a lifestyle that is abundant enough to be sustainable for myself and future generations so that we can live in peace, harmony and explore the vast potential of the human spirit.

     The time for change is now. It's up to all of us. If not us ... Who?  If not now...When?                                               

    
                                                      ...more later
    

The Case For The Camera

     A friend gave me the idea for this entry with a comment made on a social networking page. I had posted one of my photographs to a common web page of a camera manufacturer. In response to his comment about my photograph I jokingly chided him about his appearance on the web page since the page was sponsored by a brand he did not use. His response was as follows. " I am a picture taker. It's the eye that sees the picture, The camera that takes it."

     To some degree, I agree with the sentiments expressed in that statement. In my too long career working in camera shops, I had many occasions to express a similar sentiment to various customers. I had too many customers that wanted  " a camera that takes good pictures". I even went so far to ask one customer if he would go to a hardware store and ask for a hammer that hammers nails straight. Personally, I'm in the market for a guitar that plays beautiful music. Obviously the camera is only as good as the person behind it.

     However, in my renascent interest in photography, I have seen that opinion expressed ad nauseum on so many websites and blogs that it has become more than a little trite. Therefore, in this entry, I will play the devil's advocate and present an opposing viewpoint.

     On the most basic level, it is true that one does not need the very best of equipment and supplies to achieve creative satisfaction or even artistic excellence. I can remember sitting on the patio of a local pub with a dear friend who was lamenting that she wanted to do some artistic work but could not afford art supplies. An idea popped into my head and I went to the bar and came back with a couple of books of matches. ( Smoking was still allowed in the bars in those days.) " There you go. Art supplies." I lit a match and let it burn briefly before blowing it out. " Charcoal." I flipped open the matchbook to reveal the clean white cardboard inside. " Your canvas." To my delight and amazement she proceeded to make a miniature charcoal sketch right there at the table.

     To that extent, I can readily agree that the camera is merely the means by which a photograph is taken just as art supplies are merely the means by which a work of art is created and presented.

     However there is much to be said for the employment of high quality equipment and supplies. If nothing else they can go a long way to promoting the enjoyment of any artistic endeavour. Despite the novelty of the moment, my friend did not go on to pursue an artistic career based on matchbook sketches.

     In my teen years, I expressed an interest in playing the guitar and was presented one Christmas with an inexpensive instrument to get me started. Within a year the cheap neck on the guitar had bowed so badly that, unless one had hands like Schwarzenegger, it was virtually unplayable. It wasn't until years later that I purchased an instrument of decent quality that I could actually play long enough to make some musical progress.

     This overall philosophy of quality first can be carried to many facets of life. I make my living as an industrial mechanic. I could do the job with cheap tools but find it is easier and far more enjoyable to work with well made precision ones. Furthermore, tools that are well made and precisely machined are less prone to breakage providing me an extra margin of safety in a field where accidents can be deadly. I enjoy playing music and find that it is far more enjoyable with quality instruments that stay in tune and produce a more pleasing tone. I'm interested in photography and I enjoy having cameras with the potential to accomodate my creative aspirations. Why is it that our society encourages us to preserve our inner child, but makes enjoyment of our toys socially unacceptable?

     At its most rudimentary, photographic expression can be achieved by exposing a glass plate of photosensitive chemistry to rays of light focused by a pinhole in a shoebox that has been made light tight and immobile. The glass plate is then processed in a series of chemicals to develop, stop and fix the latent image.before it undergoes a thorough water wash to remove all residual traces of chemistry.The processing of said plate is done in complete darkness and thus a negative image is produced. The plate is then sandwhiched and exposed to photosensitive paper to make a contact print or is projected on to the photo paper with the use of light focused through a lens to make an enlargement. The photosensitive paper is then processed through a similar series of chemical baths under a red or "safe" light until a positive image is achieved. Once again a running water bath is employed to remove all traces of residual chemistry before the photograph is hung to dry or dried through electro mechanical means. I learned all this through practice and experience. Although I probably appear too smug here, I not only know how to take a picture, I know how to make a photograph. Big deal. It's a lost art. That and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee.

     The reason for the above diatribe is to make the point that with modern digital technology, the microprocessor and digital pathways inside the camera do indeed go a long way toward the creation of the image. The alternative is to follow the above procedure in greater or lesser degrees.

     Finally, in further refutation of the opening statement, It is not the eye that sees the picture, it is the mind. Ansel Adams called it previsualization. It is the ability to see the finished work in the mind before the actual act of creation. In my opinion, it applies to almost all successful human endeavour, artistic or otherwise. To that end, the eye is just another link in the process chain. I remember a television program where Ansel Adams was being interviewed. The host of the program asked him how many shots he took before he got the image he wanted. Adams looked at the interviewer as if he were from outer space before replying in a perplexed tone, "One." When Ansel Adams made a photograph, he already knew what he wanted and what he was going to get before he released the shutter.

     I suppose that the final upshot of all of this is that photographers have always had  good natured rivalries about the equipment and techniques they use. Ultimately, what counts are the photographs that are made as well as the fun, learning and sense of wonder that goes into making them. However, I can honestly state from experience that a digital Canon T3i is infinitely preferable to a shoebox with a pinhole.

                                                      ...more later

  The Case For The Camera ( a bad visual pun)